Time For A Carbon Clean Up, Suckers!
By Paul Homewood
Take a deep breath (and don’t breath it out again), and read what New “Scientist” has to say!
ECSTATIC celebrations broke out in Paris just before Christmas. World leaders acclaimed their freshly forged deal to fight climate change. There were hugs and tears. But hold on a second. Were the celebrations justified? The Paris agreement says governments will find a way to limit global warming to “well below 2 °C” and do their darndest to have no more than 1.5 °C. Is that even possible?
Aiming for 1.5 °C is definitely a good idea, since two degrees of warming will almost certainly wipe low-lying islands off the map (see “1.5 °C versus 2 °C“). According to some climate scientists, it is also an impossible goal. Others are more optimistic, and think 1.5 °C might just be within reach. Just. One thing is clear: if we are going to do it, we will have to create a whole new industry to suck vast quantities of carbon dioxide directly from the air. Without these “negative emissions” we can bid farewell to 1.5 °C.
So what would this carbon-sucking industry look like? From planting the Sahara to farming the oceans, there are a number of solutions we could deploy. The question is how realistic are they, and could they ever be sufficient?
The essential task is to control the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have pushed levels from 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution to 400 ppm now by burning fossil fuels and trashing nature. As a result, in 2015, meteorological stations around the world recorded a 1 °C rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial times. The …
The rest is paywalled, but three things should already be abundantly clear:
1) They seem to have woken up to the fact that nobody, other than the developed world, agreed to do anything at Paris to actually reduce GHG emissions, never mind to the levels demanded by the greenies to prevent our imminent death.
2) They are claiming that all of the “supposed” 1C rise is due to man, when most scientists claim no such thing, and accept that much of the rise has been natural.
3) They talk of “trashing” nature, when most of the evidence points to the global climate being far more optimal than it was in the Little Ice Age.
But, of course, the whole nonsensical process will create another massive gravy train, both to feed grant addicted scientists and transfer wealth to the same set of shysters who are currently making money out of the renewable scam.
Meanwhile, does anybody know if New Scientist actually covers any proper science at all these days? Answers on a postcard please.